Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Errors Do Peer Reviewers Detect and Does Training Improve Their Ability to Detect Them?

What Errors Do Peer Reviewers Detect and Does Training Improve Their Ability to Detect Them?

Randomized Controlled Trial

. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14.

doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.

What errors do peer reviewers notice, and does training improve their ability to observe them?

Affiliations

  • PMID: 18840867
  • PMCID: PMC2586872
  • DOI: ten.1258/jrsm.2008.080062

Free PMC article

Randomized Controlled Trial

What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to discover them?

Sara Schroter  et al. J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct .

Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: To analyse data from a trial and report the frequencies with which major and small errors are detected at a full general medical journal, the types of errors missed and the bear upon of grooming on mistake detection.

Design: 607 peer reviewers at the BMJ were randomized to two intervention groups receiving different types of training (contiguous training or a self-taught package) and a control group. Each reviewer was sent the aforementioned three test papers over the report catamenia, each of which had nine major and five pocket-size methodological errors inserted.

Setting: BMJ peer reviewers.

Main outcome measures: The quality of review, assessed using a validated musical instrument, and the number and type of errors detected before and after training.

Results: The number of major errors detected varied over the iii papers. The interventions had minor effects. At baseline (Paper 1) reviewers constitute an average of ii.58 of the nine major errors, with no notable difference between the groups. The mean number of errors reported was like for the 2d and third papers, 2.71 and iii.0, respectively. Biased randomization was the error detected nearly frequently in all iii papers, with over 60% of reviewers rejecting the papers identifying this error. Reviewers who did not reject the papers institute fewer errors and the proportion finding biased randomization was less than 40% for each paper.

Conclusions: Editors should non assume that reviewers will detect most major errors, peculiarly those concerned with the context of study. Short training packages have only a slight touch on improving error detection.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Proportion of reviewers identifying each error for those who did and did non recommend rejection of each paper

Similar articles

  • Effects of grooming on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.

    Schroter S, Black Northward, Evans Southward, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Schroter Due south, et al. BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE. Epub 2004 Mar 2. BMJ. 2004. PMID: 14996698 Costless PMC article. Clinical Trial.

  • Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication betwixt peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

    Schroter S, Tite Fifty, Hutchings A, Black N. Schroter S, et al. JAMA. 2006 January 18;295(iii):314-vii. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.three.314. JAMA. 2006. PMID: 16418467

  • Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

    Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Baxt WG, et al. Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;32(three Pt ane):310-vii. doi: ten.1016/s0196-0644(98)70006-x. Ann Emerg Med. 1998. PMID: 9737492

  • A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

    Galipeau J, Barbour V, Baskin P, Bell-Syer S, Cobey Grand, Cumpston M, Deeks J, Garner P, MacLehose H, Shamseer L, Straus S, Tugwell P, Wager E, Winker One thousand, Moher D. Galipeau J, et al. BMC Med. 2016 Feb 2;14:16. doi: ten.1186/s12916-016-0561-2. BMC Med. 2016. PMID: 26837937 Free PMC article. Review.

  • The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23.

    Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, Purkis J, Dirt D. Thistlethwaite JE, et al. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421-44. doi: x.3109/0142159X.2012.680939. Med Teach. 2012. PMID: 22578051 Review.

Cited past 45 articles

  • Reimagining peer review every bit an adept elicitation process.

    Marcoci A, Vercammen A, Bush Thousand, Hamilton DG, Hanea A, Hemming V, Wintle BC, Burgman M, Fidler F. Marcoci A, et al. BMC Res Notes. 2022 Apr 5;15(i):127. doi: x.1186/s13104-022-06016-0. BMC Res Notes. 2022. PMID: 35382867 Free PMC article.

  • In Defense of Scientific discipline.

    Sidebotham D. Sidebotham D. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2021 Dec;53(four):239-244. doi: x.1182/ject-2100052. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2021. PMID: 34992313 No abstract available.

  • JID Innovations and Peer Review.

    Hall RP tertiary. Hall RP tertiary. JID Innov. 2021 Oct 1;1(3):100056. doi: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100056. eCollection 2021 Sep. JID Innov. 2021. PMID: 34909739 Gratuitous PMC article. No abstract available.

  • When Cerebral Proximity Leads to College Evaluation Decision Quality: A Study of Public Funding Resource allotment.

    Zhang C, Zhang Z, Yang D, Ashourizadeh Due south, Li L. Zhang C, et al. Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 22;12:697989. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697989. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34759857 Gratuitous PMC article.

  • Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.

    Hamilton DG, Fraser H, Hoekstra R, Fidler F. Hamilton DG, et al. Elife. 2020 Nov 19;9:e62529. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62529. Elife. 2020. PMID: 33211009 Free PMC commodity.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more than resources

  • Full Text Sources

    • Atypon
    • Europe PubMed Central
    • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
    • PubMed Primal

  • Other Literature Sources

    • The Lens - Patent Citations

clunieslianythe.blogspot.com

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18840867/